Anticipatory bail may be denied where custodial interrogation is necessary to trace proceeds of serious financial fraud.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 180/2026 registered at Police Station Chakarbhata, Bilaspur, for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 338 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The prosecution alleged that the complainant was induced to deposit ₹3,13,13,850 on the false representation that the amount was required to clear a ₹103 crore demand draft allegedly issued by a person claiming to be a United Kingdom resident.

Fake e-mail IDs and various bank accounts were allegedly used in the transaction.

During investigation, the police seized electronic devices and documents from co-accused Naveen June, who was arrested on 03.04.2026.

The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy, fraudulent inducement, creation or use of fake e-mail IDs, and routing of the money through accounts belonging to co-accused persons.

The applicant claimed parity with co-accused persons who had been granted anticipatory bail.

The State opposed the application, contending that custodial interrogation was necessary to ascertain the applicant’s precise role, trace the money trail, identify other conspirators, and collect further evidence.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing anticipatory bail.

It considered the alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, concerning cheating, forgery or use of forged electronic or other documents, criminal conspiracy and common liability, along with Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning cheating by personation through a communication device or computer resource.

In determining whether pre-arrest protection should be granted, the Court assessed the nature and gravity of the allegations, the magnitude of the alleged financial fraud, the material collected during investigation, the applicant’s alleged role, the possibility of custodial interrogation, and the need to trace the proceeds of crime and identify other participants.

The Court further held that parity is not automatic where the circumstances justifying bail to a co-accused are distinguishable; specifically, the anticipatory bail granted to Pragya Shrivastava was materially based on her being a woman.

The Court found prima facie allegations that the applicant had participated in a conspiracy through which the complainant was induced to deposit a substantial sum on the false pretext of clearing a ₹103 crore demand draft.

The alleged use of fake e-mail IDs and transfer of funds into multiple accounts indicated a serious and organised financial and cyber fraud.

The investigation concerning the money trail and the respective roles of the accused was still incomplete.

Accordingly, the Court considered that custodial interrogation could be necessary to determine the applicant’s precise role, trace the proceeds, identify other conspirators and obtain further evidence.

The Court rejected the applicant’s parity argument because the circumstances in which the co-accused Pragya Shrivastava received anticipatory bail—particularly her being a woman—were not shown to apply to the applicant.

Given the gravity of the alleged offences, the amount involved and the continuing investigative requirements, the Court held that the applicant did not merit discretionary protection under Section 482 of the BNSS.

The anticipatory bail application filed by Lakshit Kumar in connection with Crime No. 180/2026 was accordingly rejected.